Doesn't Living Like the Devil After Being Saved Disprove Once Saved Always Saved?

[Kroogz]

NO! if someone is living like the devil after SUPPOSEDLY being saved, he or she was NEVER SAVED in the 1st place!!!

Lucifer(or whatever his name is) Lives as an angel of light.

Satan wants us to clean up our flesh and stop overt sin.......Then he can say , "See we can do it on our own!"

The fact that we see so much "overt sin" in this world is a judgement on Satans allowed authority in this planet. He is a horrible leader.


It is not about sinning and living like the devil.......It's about doing good and cleaning up our flesh and THINKING we are good enough.

 

[Kroogz]

If they resist God's convincing work in them

Sealed with the Sons Seal.
Born of imperishable seed.
Never perish.
Nothing can separate us from the Love of Christ.
We have a forever advocate.
We are seated with Him.
We are His sheep.
We will never, no not ever come into condemnation.
We have eternal life.

Who is resisting God's work? Not me.


The loss/forfeit/walk away crowd is resisting the fact that God DISCIPLINES believers, He does not forsake them.

 

[Kroogz]

Amen! I see perseverance in faith as a conditional confirmation that one has genuine faith, and a lack of perseverance confirms otherwise.

Well @mailmandan. You are a nominal believer to most here.

You sin. You screw up. You think imperfect. You don't "do" as much as you should........You don't persevere as much as me........You are a tare. A nominal believer.


Unless you can convince me you are persevering as well as I am.

 

[rewriter]

Do you still find yourself being careful with external sources, realizing how daunting it can be, and dubious, to consider external sourcing to be as reliable? Granted, outside sourcing can give insights not considered before about the scriptures in the Bible, but I'm unlike so many who utilize external sourcing, placing it on the same level as scripture such as those who follow the Watchtower Society.

MM

I am cautious about external sources, they can erroneous. But the sources I look at have sound reason to be trusted, many of them are hard sources, that is archeological and/or numismatic. Such are exceedingly hard to corrupt.

 

[Kroogz]

How does one reconcile “once saved, always saved” with cases where, for example, a pastor, religious leader of some sort or even a layman acquaintance of yours lives in open sin and even claims God sanctioned their ungodly relationship.

None of us, as humans, can definitively know another person’s salvation status. Salvation isn't evidenced by roles like pastor or seminary graduate but solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Even saved individuals, including the Apostle Paul, struggle with sin due to the sin nature; a malady that not one of us can claim to have overcome. See Romans 7:15, 17, and 24. See also 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, which shows to us that a brother can commit grievous sin and should be disciplined (put out of the assembly) rather than presumed lost, as is the devilish practice of some.

In other words, the practical response to seeing someone err is not to conclude they lost salvation, but that we should all pursue restoration and ensure they hear the gospel truth, erring on the side of sharing gospel truth with everyone, without offense, confirming they understand and believe the gospel of grace and the necessity for living a holy life in Christ Jesus.

The sole means of salvation is faith in what the Lord Jesus Christ did. Self-righteousness and reliance on religious status are insufficient and can leave even prominent religious figures unsaved.

MM

I quit drinking. I quit smoking. I quit being mean. I found a nice, non-cussing, pot luck, singing, and gossiping church!

They all have their lives cleaned up and quit SINNING. We all gossip and "pray" that the losers can catch up with us.

 

[Karlon]

Lucifer(or whatever his name is) Lives as an angel of light.

Satan wants us to clean up our flesh and stop overt sin.......Then he can say , "See we can do it on our own!"

The fact that we see so much "overt sin" in this world is a judgement on Satans allowed authority in this planet. He is a horrible leader.


It is not about sinning and living like the devil.......It's about doing good and cleaning up our flesh and THINKING we are good enough.

look at the title of the posting. this is a bout living like the devil. your statement: "thinking we are good enough"; we should never think that.

 

[Musicmaster]

I am cautious about external sources, they can erroneous. But the sources I look at have sound reason to be trusted, many of them are hard sources, that is archeological and/or numismatic. Such are exceedingly hard to corrupt.

Where its true that archaeology and numerism with currency and such can be more reliable than some philosophically derived doctrine, they are not measures for the acid test we must do in relation to scripture as upholding the Bible as the highest authority.

For example, there is a small smattering of examples where the scriptural narrative of Paul in his journeys from which some ancient cities were discovered such as:

• Antioch → Seleucia: ~7 hours to walk ≈ 1 day
• Attalia → Perga: ~18 km, ~3.5 hours to walk ≈ 0.4 day
• Perga → Antioch (Pisidia): ~190 km, ~40 hours ≈ 5 days

Apart from the length of some legs of his journeys, those cities may today still lay under the soil undiscovered. So, yes, biblical archaeology has a place in the understanding of times, culture, and even locations as verifications for the authenticity of the Bible, and its reliability.

Historically speaking, it was Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who became famous for using the geography/topography implied by Acts and Paul’s journeys to identify where biblical places likely were, and then supporting those identifications with field evidence (inscriptions, monuments, routes, etc.).

Archaeology, therefore, upholds the integrity of scripture moreso than the ruins themselves, for I have seen many interpretations of the artifacts and monuments that lean more in the direction of fancy and imagination than hard facts rooted in actual texts.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

I quit drinking. I quit smoking. I quit being mean. I found a nice, non-cussing, pot luck, singing, and gossiping church!

They all have their lives cleaned up and quit SINNING. We all gossip and "pray" that the losers can catch up with us.

There you go! THAT'S the area of a threshold I've been asking the loss of salvation people to define precisely from the scriptures, and not one of them have done so to this day because, deep down, they know there is no such solid definition. Instead, their faith is a Russian Roulette style system of man-made religion that's works-based...which saves not one soul...

Thanks for the humorous brevity. It's nice to see some humor injected into this every now and then, even though it stabs at the heart of a very sad reality within Western (and even Eastern) Christianity, transplanted out into other countries by missionaries who trust in money more than God's provision as was taught to the disciples by Christ Jesus.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Where its true that archaeology and numerism with currency and such can be more reliable than some philosophically derived doctrine, they are not measures for the acid test we must do in relation to scripture as upholding the Bible as the highest authority.

For example, there is a small smattering of examples where the scriptural narrative of Paul in his journeys from which some ancient cities were discovered such as:

• Antioch → Seleucia: ~7 hours to walk ≈ 1 day
• Attalia → Perga: ~18 km, ~3.5 hours to walk ≈ 0.4 day
• Perga → Antioch (Pisidia): ~190 km, ~40 hours ≈ 5 days

Apart from the length of some legs of his journeys, those cities may today still lay under the soil undiscovered. So, yes, biblical archaeology has a place in the understanding of times, culture, and even locations as verifications for the authenticity of the Bible, and its reliability.

Historically speaking, it was Sir William Mitchell Ramsay who became famous for using the geography/topography implied by Acts and Paul’s journeys to identify where biblical places likely were, and then supporting those identifications with field evidence (inscriptions, monuments, routes, etc.).

Archaeology, therefore, upholds the integrity of scripture moreso than the ruins themselves, for I have seen many interpretations of the artifacts and monuments that lean more in the direction of fancy and imagination than hard facts rooted in actual texts.

MM

I agree. I would also note that some people, including scholars, will go to absurd lengths to support their personal theories, or to avoid upsetting the applecart in other cases.

One point I find interesting, that gets danced around in scholarly circles, is that the coins of Herod the Great and Antipas both often include a star, usually in close proximity to other symbols that are associated with Israel and/or prosperity. Yet no one wants to link the stars to the "star prophesy" which would fit very well with the expansion and glorification of the Jerusalem temple that both undertook, as well as the increased fortifications. Agrippa I's expansion of the Jerusalem walls and his "birthday party" also fit. But the one that most intrigues me is the apparent systematic obliteration of one symbol on Antipas's 33-4 mintage. No known example of this specific coin does not have one specific symbol obliterated.

 

[Dave123]

Please notice that salvation isn't the contextual focus. What was at issue was who was of whom. Remember those who said, "I am of Apollos," "I am of Cephas..." The authority one carried in those times was an important feature as to if those individual going out were truly representative of the grouping with which they gave verbal assent. Therein is why even Paul had letters from the elders of the Gentile churches to present to the Jerusalem council for recognition of representation, as an example of one facet of the topic.

MM

Hey M

Good points to consider, but those who permanently abandon the faith were never truly part of Christ's Body. John’s primary point is that those permanently leaving exposes an underlying lack of genuine, regenerating faith. These are all false believers, and the point of their manifesting this is speaking about evidencing an ungenuine faith if Jesus, it's just that some of them also teach.

I believe that the principle being taught still applies to individuals also. Nobody becomes unsealed with the Holy Spirit. If he did, then God has broken His promise in the seal of the Holy Spirit, a guarantee of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14). Jesus said that when He starts a work in someone, He finishes it (Philippians 1:6). He is the Author and Finisher of that spiritual life called faith (Hebrews 12:2) which is what that seal of the Holy Spirit guarantees.

Some might claim, yes, God does all those things and promises all those things, but what if someone chooses to walk away? I would reply, then they evidenced that they never were.

 

[NightTwister]

Christians living sub-Christian lives.

How do you know they're Christians?

 

[Musicmaster]

Hey M

Good points to consider, but those who permanently abandon the faith were never truly part of Christ's Body. John’s primary point is that those permanently leaving exposes an underlying lack of genuine, regenerating faith. These are all false believers, and the point of their manifesting this is speaking about evidencing an ungenuine faith if Jesus, it's just that some of them also teach.

Could you quote the relevant verses, in context, and show where that is stated and how that correlates to us today?

I believe that the principle being taught still applies to individuals also. Nobody becomes unsealed with the Holy Spirit. If he did, then God has broken His promise in the seal of the Holy Spirit, a guarantee of our inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14). Jesus said that when He starts a work in someone, He finishes it (Philippians 1:6). He is the Author and Finisher of that spiritual life called faith (Hebrews 12:2) which is what that seal of the Holy Spirit guarantees.

Some might claim, yes, God does all those things and promises all those things, but what if someone chooses to walk away? I would reply, then they evidenced that they never were.

This is why I'm asking about the concept of how any of us can know that another was never saved in the first place...on the basis of what happens in his life in latter years, and him allegedly going to his death in that state of initial unbelief without turning around, because we also have this to consider:

2 Timothy 2:11-13
11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

So, what I wonder is how it can then be said that the man was never saved in the first place if later he sins at some undefined level, or even declares unbelief? That would contradict this context above given that one's salvation isn't based upon our personal faithfulness but rather His faithfulness. Can't it then be said that Christ becomes unfaithful on the basis of even one's unbelief? In other words, can we always apply the flip-side of a concept and assume it applies in all cases?

For example, is it right and proper to say that, although God covenanted with Abraham that his descendants will forever possess the promised land, and then turn around and inject the idea of the polar opposite becoming a resultant reality on the basis of unfaithfulness on the part of Israel. God's own actions in punishing Israel is proof positive that such cannot be the case in that scenario.

1 Corinthians 3:14-15
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

It can be said, then, that "living like the devil" at some point after salvation, is the means by which his work with which he built will be burned up, as it says, but he himself is still saved.

So, if I may, please define from scripture that line over which one has to step where the Lord allegedly declares he was never a part of the body in the first place.

Also, ask the question of why any of us should care about others in this manner. The scriptures declare that we should attempt restoration of the one who has wondered off, not to assume they were never saved. What's the point of restoration if they were allegedly never saved in the first place? Restored to what? It makes no sense that we would restore them to the unsaved state in which they allegedly were in before sinning.

You too sin, right?

Thanks

MM

 

[Mem]

Why is it impossible that everyone is saved and only needs convinced of it before they are lost forever?

 

[rewriter]

Why is it impossible that everyone is saved and only needs convinced of it before they are lost forever?

Because that would really mess up a lot of traditional theology.

 

[Dave123]

Could you quote the relevant verses, in context, and show where that is stated and how that correlates to us today?

The passage that you are replying to would be first. 1 John 2:19. I believe it applies to the point I made, that is, that it applies to us individually, even when context is considered. That would be the most relevant verse.

This is why I'm asking about the concept of how any of us can know that another was never saved in the first place...on the basis of what happens in his life in latter years, and him allegedly going to his death in that state of initial unbelief without turning around, because we also have this to consider:

Ultimately, you can tell a tree by it's fruit. I think that we always try to give people the benefit of doubt. To allow some time for a period of backsliding, perhaps. But at some point in time, if they walk away, and publicly will have nothing to do with any of it. Even verbally announcing that fact, then according to Scripture, they were never saved. They still can be. Sometimes God strips them down so that they can realize the problem themselves. At that point, they can begin to strive for something more genuine.

2 Timothy 2:11-13
11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Verse 13 in the KJV is a very poor translation. Despite our human failures and moments of weakness, God’s character is entirely unchangeable. His commitment to His promises does not depend on our perfection. My NKJV Bible says "If we are faithless, He remains faithful". I think it's more accurate to think of that passage as our 'unfaithfulness' contrasted with God being 'faithful'. When He makes a promise, He always delivers. This is different from the KJV which wrongly suggests that it's speaking of someone who "believe not", as that idea was addressed in verse 12:b in "deny Him", and "He will also denies us".

NKJV 2 Timothy 2:11-13 This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

So, what I wonder is how it can then be said that the man was never saved in the first place if later he sins at some undefined level, or even declares unbelief? That would contradict this context above given that one's salvation isn't based upon our personal faithfulness but rather His faithfulness. Can't it then be said that Christ becomes unfaithful on the basis of even one's unbelief? In other words, can we always apply the flip-side of a concept and assume it applies in all cases?

For example, is it right and proper to say that, although God covenanted with Abraham that his descendants will forever possess the promised land, and then turn around and inject the idea of the polar opposite becoming a resultant reality on the basis of unfaithfulness on the part of Israel. God's own actions in punishing Israel is proof positive that such cannot be the case in that scenario.

While we all fall short of God's perfect Holy standards, grace is not a license to sin either. Repentance is part of faith, and includes confessing it and turning aways from it. This is part of our being conformed to Christlikeness, which we are doing for the rest of our lives. Professing a faith without any change in behavior can indicate a lack of a true spiritual transformation. Sometimes it just takes a while to surface. God knows, He just wants the person to know. But His promises are irrevocable.

Romans 11:29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

When God makes a promise, He keeps it. If one person lost their salvation, all the promises listed thus far, none of them would be true.

1 Corinthians 3:14-15
14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

It can be said, then, that "living like the devil" at some point after salvation, is the means by which his work with which he built will be burned up, as it says, but he himself is still saved.

Our salvation is not dependent on our good works, is all that means. I believe that this passage below in 1 Peter is speaking of the genuineness of our faith. Notice, in that same context, the rest of the picture. God's side is a sure thing. If the faith is genuine, the promises apply. If the faith is not, that will eventually surface and show itself.

1 Peter 1:4-5 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ,

So, if I may, please define from scripture that line over which one has to step where the Lord allegedly declares he was never a part of the body in the first place.

If the motive of the person to find a line in the sand is so that they can try to get away with as much as possible, then that, in and of itself, may be evidence that they are a not saved. We who love God are not perfect, and we know it, not trusting in ourself and our efforts. We work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We do what we do out of love, not to earn what was already given to us. We should fear hearing Jesus say to us "'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' Matthew 7:21-23.

There are lines in the sand. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:17-21

To simplify, knowing that this is a constant battle, that is, the flesh and the Spirit, and like the stock market, there are ups and downs in our faith, over all, like the stock market, we want to be able to step back and see a gradual climb towards Christlikeness. They say that it's the direction that we're heading in that tells the story. Does a person looking for a line in the sand to get away with as much as possible sound like a person who's faith is heading in the right direction?

Also, ask the question of why any of us should care about others in this manner. The scriptures declare that we should attempt restoration of the one who has wondered off, not to assume they were never saved. What's the point of restoration if they were allegedly never saved in the first place? Restored to what? It makes no sense that we would restore them to the unsaved state in which they allegedly were in before sinning.

Why do you need to have a true spiritual diagnosis before acting? It's not our job to declare these things and then act accordingly. God will separate the wheat from the chaff. What if someone's false faith needed to be exposed, stripped down, so that they can begin a real faith? Maybe they are saved already, but are just going through a bad time?

You too sin, right?

Yep.

Thanks

MM

Peace

 

[Musicmaster]

The passage that you are replying to would be first. 1 John 2:19. I believe it applies to the point I made, that is, that it applies to us individually, even when context is considered. That would be the most relevant verse.

So, if I may, could you highlight a quote of that context and show how salvation had anything to do with it as opposed to who was sent out by the twelve and who was not? How does being sent out by the twelve as representatives equate to personal salvation?

Ultimately, you can tell a tree by it's fruit. I think that we always try to give people the benefit of doubt. To allow some time for a period of backsliding, perhaps. But at some point in time, if they walk away, and publicly will have nothing to do with any of it. Even verbally announcing that fact, then according to Scripture, they were never saved.

Yes, but where is that stated about their allegedly never having been saved? If they are to be restored, what does that mean...restored to what if they were allegedly never saved to begin with? Why was it not instructed to bring them to salvation and THEN restore them to the fellowship? Instead, on the the concept of restoration is stated. If restored to salvation, then that promotes and works-based system of salvation. If restored only to the fellowship, then they were indeed saved from the beginning of their faith in Christ, having never lost it. So, please elaborate further.

They still can be. Sometimes God strips them down so that they can realize the problem themselves. At that point, they can begin to strive for something more genuine.

This all in injected analysis nowhere stated in the text so far as I can see, so I eagerly await your thoughts on this.

Verse 13 in the KJV is a very poor translation. Despite our human failures and moments of weakness, God’s character is entirely unchangeable. His commitment to His promises does not depend on our perfection. My NKJV Bible says "If we are faithless, He remains faithful". I think it's more accurate to think of that passage as our 'unfaithfulness' contrasted with God being 'faithful'. When He makes a promise, He always delivers. This is different from the KJV which wrongly suggests that it's speaking of someone who "believe not", as that idea was addressed in verse 12:b in "deny Him", and "He will also denies us".

NKJV 2 Timothy 2:11-13 This is a faithful saying: For if we died with Him, We shall also live with Him. If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us. If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself.

When things degenerate into version wars, that's a dead end street, a topic killer for sure. I can find other "translations" that say what I, in the past, wanted to believe about many things in scripture. I've done extensive studies, with my scholarly peers, and our conclusions have established for us the superior scholarship behind the KJV. That's not to say it's perfect, but it is the very word of God that He has preserved through many assaults.

Just wanted to say that I personally remain unimpressed with diversions into other translations that admittedly consider the minority manuscripts, as an appeal to antiquity, are the more reliable and best texts. Philosophically, that just doesn't hold water in our estimation as a team. Just our take on it, that's all.

Our salvation is not dependent on our good works, is all that means. I believe that this passage below in 1 Peter is speaking of the genuineness of our faith. Notice, in that same context, the rest of the picture. God's side is a sure thing. If the faith is genuine, the promises apply. If the faith is not, that will eventually surface and show itself.

Peter, the one who admitted that the things Paul taught were difficult for him and the other majority of Jews to understand? Keeping that in mind, Peter also was an apostle to the circumcision (Israel), not Gentiles. Paul emphasized rightly dividing Scripture to distinguish between Christ’s teachings under the law and prophecy, during His earthly ministry (gospel of the kingdom), and the revelation given from that same Christ to the Apostle Paul (gospel of the grace of God).

Diverting somewhat, it's interesting that so many don't realize that the gospel preached by the Judaizers was indeed the Kingdom Gospel preached by the twelve to Israel. This is evidenced by way of James and Peter never once decrying that message the Judaizers preached to the churches under Paul's ministry. James even bragged about the thousands of believing Jews still being zealous for the Law. Nowhere did they ever cast any shadow of rebuke nor correction upon that focus.

MM

 

[Dave123]

So, if I may, could you highlight a quote of that context and show how salvation had anything to do with it as opposed to who was sent out by the twelve and who was not? How does being sent out by the twelve as representatives equate to personal salvation?

It's not about the twelve, it's about false teachers being sent out by them. And those who have a false faith are part of those false teachers. Not all false teachers do so deliberately. Some actually believed that they were right, and that the Apostles were wrong. Like the Scribes and the Pharisees did with Jesus. They will do the same thing to us. Those false teachers were never part of the Apostles by title, therefore, they could not have "went out from them" in that way. They were however, part of the Christian community of which the Apostles headed at that time.

They went out from us (Christian community), to manifest that they (false teachers, rejecting the Gospel for something else...includes all unbelievers.) were never of us (Christian community). Apostles are not determined by whether or not they stay under the authority of the other Apostles. We're not adding or subtracting to the Twelve. The Twelve are determined by Jesus.

Not, they went out from us (Apostles), to manifest that they (false teachers) were never of us (Apostles). [/B]

Just wanted to say that I personally remain unimpressed with diversions into other translations that admittedly consider the minority manuscripts, as an appeal to antiquity, are the more reliable and best texts. Philosophically, that just doesn't hold water in our estimation as a team. Just our take on it, that's all.

Comparing versions is the easiest way to expose the misinterpretations of outdated English and bad translations.

 

[Kroogz]

THAT'S the area of a threshold I've been asking the loss of salvation people to define precisely from the scriptures, and not one of them have done so to this day

They can't. And the Lord Jesus Christ would be EXACT and it would be without question if we could lose salvation.


It's the Lake of Fire as a consequence.......He would NOT leave any questions.

Never perish.
Born of imperishable seed.
Sealed.
No CONDEMNATION, no not ever any condemnation.
Nothing can separate us from the Love of Christ.
Forever advocate.
Eternal life.
Seated with Him.

He didn't leave any questions. We are sealed/saved FOREVER ......IN Him.

 

[Musicmaster]

It's not about the twelve, it's about false teachers being sent out by them.

Who were the false teachers allegedly sent out by them? Please specify.

And those who have a false faith are part of those false teachers. Not all false teachers do so deliberately. Some actually believed that they were right, and that the Apostles were wrong. Like the Scribes and the Pharisees did with Jesus. They will do the same thing to us. Those false teachers were never part of the Apostles by title, therefore, they could not have "went out from them" in that way. They were however, part of the Christian community of which the Apostles headed at that time.

So are you saying the Judaizers were teaching falsehoods in relation to what the twelve taught the believing Jews in Jerusalem? If so, what's your basis? I realize the twelve stated that they had not sent out the Judaizers to cross over to the Gentile churches under Paul's ministry, but that doesn't automatically point to the Judaizers teaching anything other than what was upheld by the twelve, so please do explain the correlation between what you seem to be saying and the textual statements inspired by the Lord Himself.

They went out from us (Christian community), to manifest that they (false teachers, rejecting the Gospel for something else...includes all unbelievers.) were never of us (Christian community). Apostles are not determined by whether or not they stay under the authority of the other Apostles. We're not adding or subtracting to the Twelve. The Twelve are determined by Jesus.

Not, they went out from us (Apostles), to manifest that they (false teachers) were never of us (Apostles). [/B]

The Judaizers not being sent out doesn't automatically translate into them teaching falsehoods. Here's what I see you doing here:

Your parenthetical injection is where the fallacies mostly happen:

• Equivocation / shifting reference (“us”/“they”): You took the pronouns from the passage and then changed what “they” means by inserting extra claims (e.g., “includes all unbelievers”). That’s using the same words while silently changing the referent.
• I see also loaded generalizations / sweeping claims: “False teachers… rejecting the Gospel for something else… includes all unbelievers.” That leaps from “these people went out” to “all unbelievers,” which is far beyond what the text being discussed supports, given that those to whom Paul ministered already were also involved in their outreach.
• Also straw man / misrepresentation: It reframes the alternative reading (“us = Christian community” vs “us = Apostles”) as if the debate is about adding/subtracting the Twelve, even though the “went out from us” language is primarily about who is being contrasted, not about whether the content of the teaching was itself false in relation to what was taught by the twelve.
• Lastly, non sequitur (weak inference from the passage): “Apostles are not determined by whether or not they stay under the authority…,” for Paul was not the thirteenth apostle nor was he teaching what they taught. That’s a separate theological point, but you used it as if it directly follows from the pronoun interpretation. The conclusion doesn’t logically connect. The conflict arose because of the differences in the gospels, otherwise there should not have been any problem with the Judaizers supporting what Paul taught. Instead, there were differences, thus the conflict.

So, conclusively, one primary label for your stated analysis: equivocation via shifting referents without regard for the differences in the core messages.

Comparing versions is the easiest way to expose the misinterpretations of outdated English and bad translations.

I disagree because you're trying to appeal to confusion / burden shift, and subjectively choosing one over the other. Furthermore, if the claim is “different versions prove disagreement, so therefore the one is invalid because of its disagreement with the one I have chosen,” that violates the inherent concept that disagreement about interpretation/wording doesn’t automatically refute the underlying doctrine. That’s often related to non sequitur (“MY chosen translation” ⇒ “the other one must be false or in error”).
When your argument assumes that because a translation committee chose wording A instead of B, assuming that necessarily proves deliberate doctrinal change or unreliability, it violates the defining concept of evidence-weighting. Conclusions should track the kind of difference shown (wording vs manuscript evidence vs omissions). The Greek Lexicons don't necessarily agree with your conclusion in all cases.

The hasty generalization / sweeping claim you're making asserts that comparing versions is the easiest way to expose misinterpretations from “outdated English and bad translations,” which implies (without evidence) that most discrepancies mainly come from bad/outdated translation and that this method will straightforwardly reveal “misinterpretations.”

So, no. My colleagues and I have spent thousands of hours pouring over this and we have what we're comfortable in stating about these kinds of generalizations. The plethora of arm chair experts out there who haven't done the homework necessary to glean a deeper understanding about the subject generally are following after their little educated pastors/Sunday school teachers, favorite online commentator or some other source not familiar with the host of manuscripts from which the KJV translation committee drew from. No other committee has yet matched the scholastic scope in numbers and depth of that committee. The NIV and other of the more recent "translations" do not match by comparison. It's assumed by many that modern scholarship compares to that of the KJV committee as the flat-earth beliefs of the 15th century compares to NASA today. That has roots in some of the grossest of assumptions imaginable. That's not to say I'm KJV only since I do trapse over into the manuscripts and interlinears and such, but I turn a more jaundiced eye toward the recent translations by comparison.

MM

 

[JohnDB]

How does one reconcile “once saved, always saved” with cases where, for example, a pastor, religious leader of some sort or even a layman acquaintance of yours lives in open sin and even claims God sanctioned their ungodly relationship.

None of us, as humans, can definitively know another person’s salvation status. Salvation isn't evidenced by roles like pastor or seminary graduate but solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Even saved individuals, including the Apostle Paul, struggle with sin due to the sin nature; a malady that not one of us can claim to have overcome. See Romans 7:15, 17, and 24. See also 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, which shows to us that a brother can commit grievous sin and should be disciplined (put out of the assembly) rather than presumed lost, as is the devilish practice of some.

In other words, the practical response to seeing someone err is not to conclude they lost salvation, but that we should all pursue restoration and ensure they hear the gospel truth, erring on the side of sharing gospel truth with everyone, without offense, confirming they understand and believe the gospel of grace and the necessity for living a holy life in Christ Jesus.

The sole means of salvation is faith in what the Lord Jesus Christ did. Self-righteousness and reliance on religious status are insufficient and can leave even prominent religious figures unsaved.

MM

By grace you are saved, through faith, not by works of yourselves so that no one can boast.

If you do NOT have faith
Or
Use your grace as a license to sin like Judas did....

You get what Judas got.